Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“I just don’t see any reason why the BEST guys can’t provide some straightforward guidance for what they think is the better product, and why.”

When real users ask, they get my guidance. when trolls ask, I mainly ignore them, but I’ll make an exception

If you want a global series, use the global series. duh
If you are interested in a state, say when the state of california wanted data,
I talk to the analyst about his various choices. and the various products and their pluses and minuses. He ended up using the quarter degree feilds.
Some guys want just the raw data and they will do their own local work.
If you are interested in comparing to a GCM.. use the 1 degree product.
although for USA RGCM work I’ve used the quarter degree.

Sometimes people want the world at 1km, so I direct them to my buddies work.
At my day job i will probably use the daily experimental product, but first I need to test a couple things.. I may just build a new product from the raw data.

It would be nice if it were like buying an adaptor for your vaccum cleaner.
its not.
go figure.


Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“(I mention this because Brandon’s 1960-2000 number comes from your code as well. It also appears the shift to 1900-2000 is a very new change. ”

It’s an option. duh.
I believe we tried to explain on WUWT that we tested the sensitivity of the answers to this and found nothing of importance.
some folks want to make an issue about it.. what’s new

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“(I mention this because Brandon’s 1960-2000 number comes from your code as well. It also appears the shift to 1900-2000 is a very new change. Also people shouldn’t get yelled at by you guys when you make undocumented changes to your code or set of run parameters, and they’ve assumed the default values.)”

Its on the chart.

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by curryja

$
0
0

FYI, carrick has a Ph.D. in physics and works for a major research university

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Wagathon

$
0
0

For quality control purposes we do not hold the original raw data but only the homogenized, value-added data. Thanks, Phil Jones

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0

Zeke Hausfather:http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf

Thank you for the link. The paper references a technical supplement: In order to be clear and concise, we will be somewhat qualitative in
our description; the precise terms and the detailed equations will be provided in the mathematical supplement that accompanies this paper.
Is there a link to the technical supplement?

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Carrick

$
0
0

Stephen Mosher:

When real users ask, they get my guidance. when trolls ask, I mainly ignore them, but I’ll make an exception

I’m a troll now? LOL.

At least I’m not a holocaust denier for pointing out your various products contradict each other.

Good grief.

>.<

If you want a global series, use the global series. duh
If you are interested in a state, say when the state of california wanted data,

I told you exactly what I was looking, and you even quoted me before calling me a troll. Namely straightforward guidance for what your group thinks is the better product. And the product I was specifically looking at was this:

Three choices: Which in your groups estimation is best for studying what that product is displaying—the surface map of temperature trend—and why?

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by DocMartyn

$
0
0

Er Steve, you know that one can do things that have a basis in the physical nature of matter, rather than in silico, don’t you?
Just do a damned calibration test.


Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Shub Niggurath

$
0
0

Who’s thomas w fuller the 2nd? ;) :)

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Matthew R Marler

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“Given that the supposed greenhouse effect of CO2 depends on concentration changes well after pre-1900, at best (heh!) the effects of “BEST’s homogenization” is to offer a tiny bit more credence to the LIA, and interpretations of recent warming as part of the rebound from it.”

AK,

Let’s see if I can help you.

The global temperature series is important ( impacts published science) in the following ways.

1. It can be used is sensitivity studies. take Lewis and curry as an
example. For there study they look at two periods to calculate Delta T
late 1800s and present day.. Adjustments might change deltaT
by a little amount. sensitivity is related to Dt/Df. The uncertainty in
Df swamps the calculation. Dt is not a sensitive parameter.
2. It can be used to test GCMs. Here the lates period matters most.
3. It can be used to calibrate and validate reconstructions.
I only know of one reconstruction that got different results by using
using raw data for a grid. Basically changing temperatures by a couple tenths here or there wont make the MWP disappear or get warmer.
4. Spectral studies. adjustments do nothing.

In short I dont find any paper that would have to be retracted, have its conclusions changed, by fiddling the adjustments one more time.

what did we set out to do?

1. Skeptics complained about the station drop out. we used all the data.
2. skeptics complained about the non standard methods. we used kriging which they suggested.
3. Skeptics complained about combining stations ( nasaRSM method ).
we did what they suggested and what they had actually published
( see christy )
4. They complained about humans applying adjustments in an unfair manner. We built and tested an algorithm
5. They wanted all the data. we gave it
6. They wanted the code. we gave them SVN.
7 they suggested hiring critics. did that
8. they suggested having professional statisticians. did that.

Now of course we get round two of objections.
1. prove the digital records match the paper records.
2. Get the local field perfect
3. Explain GISS again
4. provide all code changes you have ever made.
5. help me with matlab
6. talk to us even though we really are not users of your data.
7. go place new thermometers all over the world to test your approach.
8. look for sawtooth patterns in stations
9. explain why the algorithm does what it does in these 10,000 cases.

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Brian

$
0
0

Mosher,
Carrick is a troll? Really? Interesting.
However, now that you bludgeoned this series of numbers, that have nothing to do with one another, into a nonphysical temperature average, it must be time for you to take on the Los Angeles phone book. It’s a real nice series of numbers. When you are done maybe you could explain what the average over those telephone numbers mean. Oh right …

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Comment on Open thread by Lucifer

$
0
0

Yes, confusing, since precipitation is largely determined by convergence zones ( passing cold fronts and the ITCZ ) the kinds of events that climate models don’t resolve.

And since, if any trend, it appears percentage of the globe in any level of drought
has been declining:

And since the US Palmer Drought Severity Index versus global temperature is not convincing of any correlation:

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by A C Osborn

$
0
0

Mosher, no it is you who “doesn’t get it”.
Thr=ere is nothing wrong with the original data, but your algorithm will change it.


Comment on Open thread by EdG

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“Brandon, how do you think it would handle 10 degrees C difference in temperature 40 miles apart?
One station on one side of the Pennines and the other station on the other side.
It happened last week.

###################################

1. You are talking about daily figures. Our daily product is still experimental.
2. We turn daily into monthly and then predict the MONTHLY value at those two locations. the monthly difference between two locations at the same latitude and altitude is ON AVERAGE very small 40 miles apart.. on the order of .5C or a bit more ( at ZERO distance ) the average is .46C.
3. In this case in a mountainous region I would expect more error.

The reason yu can expect more error, the reason that local regions by mountains are less accurate is the regression only takes into account latitude and altitude and season. The regions you are talking about have another factor: Cold air drainage. This inverts the relationship between altitude and temperature. Currently, I’ve been looking at adding a landscape parameter ( TWI) that other people have found useful for improving the local temperature fields. if that works it should improve the fidelity of local fields.

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Gonzo

$
0
0

How can any USA data set which shows the 1930’s as being cooler than supposedly the hottest decade and hottest year evah reconcile with this heat wave index of the US?

Comment on Open thread by Tonyb

$
0
0

Danny

Ipcc reports are overblown but there is the rather more concise ‘ summary for policy makers.’

Policy makers will skim through even that, or rather they will likely get their advisers to pick the bones out of it. If the advisers have an agenda the summary of the summary might have a bias.

The trouble is that the summary is not always a fair reflection of the science contained in the full ipcc reports which is often more conservative or equivocal than the summary

I am not sure about over reliance on digital copies as reading something on a screen is never as intense as reading it on a screen.

Conferences of the sort that the ipcc and the eu and many other bodies conductndancy to be very overblown. Important negotiations is often carried out at times when the delegates will normally be asleep. Important eu decisions for instance are often made after a full day of meetings at three o’clock n the morning.

The ipcc has a very small secretariat in geneva. If they are to do things in a different way they will likely need more funding or the individual contributing bodies will need to cough up more money and resources.

Tonyb

Comment on Open thread by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Lucifer,

Thank you for that. Scatter plot looks like a pretty good shotgun pattern well centered.

Do you know if those that put forth the GCM results rerun them on a regular basis with fresh (hope this terminology is correct) initial values even if still based on RCP 8.5? Seems like that would be prudent methodology. Are these papers, once produced, static or do they evolve?

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images